Etiquette and 19th C. Politeness

"Acquaintances made in travelling, or accidentally in public places, have no claim to more than a passing bow if you afterwards find that the acquaintanceship is not particularly desirable?"

Rules of Politeness and Introductions

As a general role, do not introduce a gentleman to a lady without first privately asking her permission. In going through the ceremony of introducing, pronounce the name of the lady first, adding; "Permit me to present to you Mr. —. " In introducing two gentlemen, present the younger one to the elder, or the one of lower rank to the one of the higher. If the gentlemen are about the same age, and equal in society, present the stranger to the one with whom you are the most intimate. The best form of expression that can be used in introducing two gentlemen, who are in the same circle, is to say; " Mr.— let me make you acquainted wilh Mr. —." But if you are addressing an elderly gentleman, always say, "Mr. — , permit me to present to you Mr. — ." 

A lady should always be perfectly at her ease while introducing her friends to one another, as she has, while performing this necessary little ceremony, great opportunity of proving whether or not her manners are truly graceful. It is not considered fashionable to introduce two persons who accidentally meet in your parlor, and who are paying you a morning visit. The object of this custom in France, (where it first arose) was to prevent formality, as visitors were expected to converse together without an introduction, and were afterwards at liberty to recognize each other or not just as they pleased. It is, therefore, in good taste if you find your guests do not converse together without an introduction to present them to one another. Never introduce in the street, unless the third person joins and walks with you. You may make an exception to this rule when the parties are mutually desirious of knowing one another. 

If you are walking with one lady, do not stop to converse with others who are unknown to her, as she must necessarily feel unpleasant. If you are walking with a gentleman you may follow the bent of your inclination, for if he is well bred he will attend your pleasure without evincing either impatience or awkwardness. A lady is at liberty to take either another lady or a gentleman to pay a morning visit to a friend, without asking permission: but she should never allow a gentleman the same liberty, if he desires to make any of his friends known to her, he must first ask if the acquaintance would be agreeable. 

A lady who is invited to an evening assembly may always request a gentleman who has not been invited by the lady of the house, to accompany her. Acquaintances made in travelling, or accidentally in public places, have no claim to more than a passing bow if you afterwards finds that the 
acquaintanceship is not particularly desirable. When a gentleman is presented to a lady, if she is in her own house, and desires to welcome him, she may shake hands with him, but on any other occasion, unless the gentleman is venerable, or the bosom frfend of the husband or father, this practice is reprehensible. The same rule should be observed when a lady is introduced to a lady: although in this country the habit of shaking hands is very general. 

In introducing a friend, be as cautious of saying too much in his favor, as too little, for if the introduced be really the possessor of very good qualities, they will soon be lound out, and more appreciated than if they had in the first instance been all told. At a large dinner or evening party, although some persons strictly adhere to the French custom of not introducing, the mistress of the house shows real politeness by presenting to one another those persons who she thinks will assimilate in their dispositions. If there are strangers present, a party in America is apt to become formal through the omission of introductions; not so in Paris, where everybody converses with his neighbor without going through the unnecessary ceremony of a presentation. — Scientific American Magazine, 1846

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Rules of Etiquette and Politeness

 Good manners inspired by good principles, prompted by good fellowship, polished by good form, will fit one for good society anywhere. 

Politeness consists in repressing ill-natured comments in the first place, not in asserting the contrary afterward. There are a few persons who are rebellious about some rules of etiquette which seem useless for those of high moral caliber; but as other laws are made for the majority, so are those of social convention, especially for those who are prone to transgress. 

Of course, very few of the rules of good form are absolute and unchangeable, and they must be more or less regulated by the standards of the people with whom one lives and the requirements of the place in which one resides. 

The old riddle asks: "What is the keynote to good manners?" The answer: "Be natural." Natural manners are always the most charming, provided that one is well bred, otherwise the self-revelation is unpleasant. 

The "fashionable" manner of today is simple, cordial and free from affectation. Good manners inspired by good principles, prompted by good fellowship, polished by good form, will fit one for good society anywhere. — Los Angeles Herald, 1902

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Etiquette and the Ceremonial Observances of Society

Polite conduct is not necessarily more exclusive than correct speaking.

It is quite a mistake to suppose that the ceremonial observances of society are merely a set of edicts arbitrarily established by the capricious tyrant, Fashion, for the government only of her slavish subjects. Polite conduct is not necessarily more exclusive than correct speaking. The laws of the one are indeed, like those of the other, founded upon the usage of the refined few, but there is no better reason why these should enjoy a monopoly of good manners than of good grammar. 

There are many, however, who seem to think that social ceremonies are so many frivolous afiectations by which the wealthy or fashionable strive to raise themselves to a factious elevation above others, and consequently refuse all observance of them with scorn. It is an unfortunate thing for general culture when the many acquire such a prejudice against the few that in their aversion to their pretentious superiority they reject their real excellence. 

The small class of the rich and refined have time to cultivate the elegancies of life; and although, in the excess of their leisure, they superadded a variety of frivolous ceremonies, their example in what is practically useful should be followed. Wesley used to say, when advocating the adaptation of the music of the opera and theatre to the sacred songs of the Church, that he did not know why the devil should have all the best tunes. We may ask, with equal reason, why Fashion should have all the good manners, and elevation above others, and consequently refuse all observance of them with scorn. 

It would be easy to show that many ceremonious observances which appear at first sight frivolous are founded upon a solid basis of common sense. Consider, for example, that rule of the dinner-table, "Do not ask twice for soup," This appears at first sight both silly and arbitrary. It is, however, a very sensible ordinance, and is to be justified by the laws of health, and the general comfort and convenience. The soup, being a fluid substance, can easily be absorbed in small quantities, and, thus taken, is a good reason for ceremony, and preparative for the solidities of the dinner. 

If, however, the stomach is deluged with it, the appetite and digestion become weakened, and there is neither the inclination to eat nor the power to digest the more substantial food essential to the due nutrition of the body. As for the convenience or comfort of the single-plate rule, no one can deny it who has ever looked upon an array of hungry guests whose eager appetite for the coming roast has been forced to an impatient delay by some social monster capable of asking twice for soup. The cook in the meantime is, of course, thrown out in his calculations, and the dish, when it does come at last, is either spoiled by overcooking, or cold from being withdrawn so long from the fire. The guests thus are not only tried in temper by a protracted expectation, but balked of their anticipated enjoyment.

The advantage of not putting the knife in the mouth will be obvious, we suppose, to all who are conscious that the one can cut and the other is capable of being cut. There is an excellent chemical reason for that other table rule which forbids the use of a knife of steel with the fish, the ordinary sauces of which combine with the metal, and produce a composition neither wholesome nor appetizing.

A sampling from Bazaar's "Book of Decorum"